The Justice Department has taken the extraordinary step of requesting a federal judge be removed from a case involving President Trump, citing a pattern of bias that threatens to undermine the justice system’s integrity.
Key Takeaways
- The DOJ has formally requested Judge Beryl Howell recuse herself from a case involving Perkins Coie, citing demonstrated “partiality against and animus” toward President Trump
- Judge Howell recently blocked enforcement of a Trump executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a firm connected to the controversial Steele dossier
- The Justice Department cited multiple instances of alleged bias, including Howell’s comment that Trump had “a bee in his bonnet” over the dossier
- This case resembles another DOJ motion seeking to remove Judge James Boasberg from a deportation case involving Venezuelan gang members
- Both judges were Obama appointees and are presiding over multiple cases challenging Trump administration policies
Unprecedented Request Cites Pattern of Judicial Animus
The Justice Department has launched an uncommon legal challenge by requesting that U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell be disqualified from presiding over a case involving law firm Perkins Coie. The motion filed by Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson argues that Howell has demonstrated clear hostility toward President Trump, making her unsuitable to render impartial judgments. This move represents a significant departure from typical DOJ procedures, as motions to disqualify federal judges are usually reserved for clear-cut conflicts of interest or judicial misconduct.
The filing specifically cites Judge Howell’s previous rulings and public comments as evidence of bias. Howell has “repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the president,” stated Justice Department attorneys in their motion, adding that “Defendants deserve a court proceeding free from concerns about impartiality. In order to remove the possibility of any impartiality to these proceedings, defendants respectfully request that this court recuse itself.”
The Perkins Coie Connection and Executive Order
At the center of this legal dispute is an executive order issued by President Trump targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep connections to Democratic politics. The presidential directive stripped Perkins Coie lawyers of their security clearances and denied them access to government buildings. The order characterized the firm as engaged in “dishonest and dangerous activity” – notably referencing its role in hiring Fusion GPS, which subsequently employed Christopher Steele to compile the controversial dossier on Trump that contained unverified allegations about his connections to Russia.
“The Justice Department accused Judge Beryl Howell of ‘hostility’ to President Trump and asked that she take herself off a case in which she blocked the president’s attempt to punish a Democrat-connected law firm that helped sponsor the infamous ‘Steele dossier.'”
Judge Howell recently issued a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of these sanctions against Perkins Coie. During a hearing on the matter, she remarked that Trump had “a bee in his bonnet” regarding the dossier’s untrue allegations about him and Russia – a comment the Justice Department cited as further evidence of her bias. This characterization struck government attorneys as demonstrating a lack of judicial neutrality in a highly sensitive political matter.
It's full on war between the executive branch and the judiciary as the DOJ moves to disqualify District Court Judge Beryl Howell from the @PerkinsCoieLLP case. https://t.co/LgDZB2SSYe
— Cate Long (@cate_long) March 21, 2025
Growing Pattern of Judicial Challenges
The motion against Judge Howell mirrors a similar recent request by the DOJ to remove Chief Judge James Boasberg from a case involving the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. Both judges were nominated by President Obama and sit on the district court in Washington, with Howell currently presiding over at least five cases challenging Trump administration policies, while Boasberg has three pending. These parallel challenges suggest a strategic approach by the Justice Department to address what it perceives as systematic bias in certain federal courts.
“Reasonable observers may well view this Court as insufficiently impartial to adjudicate the meritless challenges to President Trump’s efforts to implement the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out,” reads the motion.
The Justice Department’s motion specifically requests that the Perkins Coie case be reassigned to “return this matter to assignment before a judge free from any appearance of hostility toward this administration and is otherwise unconnected with any matter related.” Legal experts note that while such requests for judicial recusal are uncommon from the government, they reflect growing tensions between the executive branch and judiciary over the implementation of presidential policies that were central to Trump’s campaign platform.
Sources:
- DOJ moves to boot federal judge from Perkins Coie case – POLITICO
- Trump Administration Sees Bias in a Judge and Tries to Push Her Off a Case – The New York Times
- Justice Dept. asks for judge to be booted off case after ruling against Trump – Washington Times
